C. v. Modesto City Schools ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 D.C. an incompetent adult; by and through Case No. 1:22-cv-01481-HBK his guardian ad litem DeNiece Murphy, 12 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO Plaintiff, APPOINT GUARDIAN AD LITEM 13 v. (Doc. No. 3) 14 MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS and 15 STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Petitioner DeNiece Murphy, through counsel, filed an application for the Court to appoint 19 DeNiece Murphy as guardian ad litem for the Plaintiff, D.C., an incompetent adult person on 20 November 16, 2022. (Doc. No. 3). Petitioner submits a Declaration in Support. (Doc. No. 3-1). 21 The Court grants the application. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 provides for a representative of an incompetent person 23 to sue or defend on an incompetent person’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). Similarly, the Local 24 Rules of this Court, in pertinent part, states: 25 Upon commencement of an action or upon initial appearance in defense of an action by or on behalf of a minor or incompetent 26 person, the attorney representing the minor or incompetent person shall present ... a motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem 27 by the Court, or ... a showing satisfactory to the Court that no such appointment is necessary to ensure adequate representation of the 28 minor or incompetent person. 1 | Local Rule 202(a) (E.D. Cal. March 1, 2022). 2 Appointment of a guardian ad litem is not a mere formality because the guardian “is 3 | authorized to act on behalf of his ward and may make all appropriate decisions in the course of 4 | specific litigation.” United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Klickitat 5 || Cty., State of Wash., 795 F.2d 796, 805 (9th Cir. 1986). “The purpose of Rule 17(c) is to protect 6 | an incompetent person’s interest in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit. Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 7 | 1303, 1310 (th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). A “guardian ad litem need not possess any special 8 | qualifications,” but must “be truly dedicated to the best interests of the person on whose behalf he 9 | seeks to litigate.” AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager, 143 F.Supp.3d 1042, 1053-54 (E.D. Cal. 2015) 10 | (citations omitted). 11 The court has considered the application of DeNeice Murphy for appointment as guardian 12 | ad litem for D.C., the incompetent Plaintiff. DeNeice Murphy is not a party to the instant action. 13 | (See generally Doc. No. 1). She is the parent and education rights holder for D.C. (Doc No. 3 at 14 | 1; Doc. No. 3-1). The Court does not find any apparent conflict of interest or any other factors 15 | that demonstrate such appointment is not in the best interests of the incompetent Plaintiff. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 The application to appoint a guardian ad litem for the incompetent Plaintiff (Doc. No. 3) is 18 | GRANTED and DeNeice Murphy is appointed as Plaintiff D.C.’s guardian ad litem. 19 | Dated: _ November 22, 2022 Mihaw. □□ fares Zackte 21 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28